Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org writes:
Imi had started JOSM versions but they quickly became a farce;
everybody working with a numbered version (aka stable) was always told
to throw it away and use the latest nightly build at the first sign of
trouble, and every now and then he would
Dirk Stöcker openstreet...@dstoecker.de writes:
This is something I (as packager for openSUSE) do not like at all. When
Yes in a build system this can make things more complex.
I was mostly worried about that
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/download/
should list the version number. No need to
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Sebastian Klein wrote:
Do you write software for the packager or for the user? I'm sure you can
hack a little perl script to make this more convenient.
The same issues I have as packager apply to the user. He has to fiddle
around as well when name constantly changes (e.g.
ehem, sorry for the posting in german ...
Regard
Karl
Am 09.02.2010 19:21, schrieb Dirk Stöcker:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Karl Guggisberg wrote:
Also all released JOSM jar files are signed, so you can use Java to
verify
signature.
Handelt es sich dabei um einen Teil des bisher nicht
Hi,
I was wondering, why we still have revision numbers for the releases. I
assume, most users won't know the concept of software revisions (and
don't care) but are much more familiar with handy version numbers.
The fact that the version of the plugins is one magnitude higher than
the JOSM
Hi Sebastian
Absolutely. That's one of the things we should do in the next release:
* proper release naming
* proper labeling in SVN
I came up with a slightly different naming scheme, though. If we want to
be understood by users with less technical background a release name
0.10.1-r1566 could
Karl Guggisberg wrote:
Hi Sebastian
Absolutely. That's one of the things we should do in the next release:
* proper release naming
* proper labeling in SVN
I came up with a slightly different naming scheme, though. If we want to
be understood by users with less technical background a
2010/2/8 Sebastian Klein basti...@googlemail.com:
Yes, it looks a little cryptic like that, but you can write it shorter:
JOSM 0.16
or more verbose:
JOSM 0.16 (3rd revision, build 2561)
What about JOSM 1.16? Is JOSM still pre 1.0 ?
cheers,
Martin
Karl Guggisberg karl.guggisb...@guggis.ch writes:
Hi Sebastian
Absolutely. That's one of the things we should do in the next release:
* proper release naming
* proper labeling in SVN
I came up with a slightly different naming scheme, though. If we want to
be understood by users with less
At 2010-02-08 20:28, Matthias Julius wrote:
Personally, I don't like those year based version numbers. IMHO they
only make sense if you follow a strictly yearly schedule.
They do, however, eliminate the inevitable debate of what constitutes a
major vs. minor release.
--
Alan Mintz
10 matches
Mail list logo
